April 17, 2010

The Oklahoma City bombing took place in 1995, during Bill Clinton's watch, so maybe little things set him off and the memories come flooding back. Maybe we should be tolerant of the old man's maunderings. But I think that Clinton is super-sharp, that he knows he can connect with the American psyche — not all the time, but some of the time, and that he's deliberately applying his skills for specific, political effect:

"Before the bombing occurred, there was a sort of fever" in the political dialogue that was in ways similar in content to the anger currently boiling up on talk radio and on the Internet, Clinton said at a forum on the 15th anniversary of the attack by Timothy McVeigh that killed 168.

"The fabric of American life had been unraveling" in 1995 amid high unemployment, Clinton said.

"The structure of the Cold War -- the clear bipolar world -- was coming to an end," Clinton said. "There were more and more people having trouble figuring out where they fit in. It is true that we see some of that today."

Clinton said people have the right "to advocate whatever the livin' Sam Hill they want to advocate" but they must observe "the basic line dividing criticism from violence or its advocacy."

118 comments:

Remember how whenever George Bush would talk about the war or about terrorism, the Democrats would complain loudly that he was politicizing the war? Well, if what Bush did was bad, what Bill Clinton has just done was far worse. George Bush had a duty to explain to the American people why the war in Iraq was necessary and how his Administration was combating terrorism. Indeed, one of his failings as a President was he didn't clearly explain these things often enough. On the other hand, the Tea Party is a peaceful movement. None among them is calling for the violent overthrow of the government. Bill Clinton's attempt to link the Oklahoma bombing to the Tea Party with the suggestion the Tea Party would lead to something similar is a grotesque smear done for political purposes. There is no justification for it because there is no link and no truth to his words. But, as has often been said about Bill Clinton, he is an exceptionally good liar.

Was it when he warned us that the banking system would collapse due to Rep & Dem errors in giving everyone a govt-backed mortgage or was it when he warned us many, many times about the threat of Bin Laden and AlQuaeda or was it when he said global warming was overblown or was it when he said Saddam had WMD or was it when he told us we had to privatize Social Security or it would go broke?

1) It means that the FBI has taken their eye off the ball. They're devoting scare resources to finding homegrown terrorists that do not exist.

2) al Queda can now relax a bit since the FBI clearly does not see them as much of a threat, seeing as how Barack Obama's FBI director is conducting a conspiracy witch hunt against Americans who are merely angry that the United States is being turned into Soviet Russia circa 1950.

It's time to remove this regime from power. It is my fervent hope that Republican and Tea Party candidates will take over the US House of Representatives this November so that we can get on with impeaching our criminal president and get folks like Director Muller off the beat.

He's clearly fucking delusional to suggest that dissenting Americans pose a greater threat to the country than people who fly airplanes into our buildings and murdered 3,000 people.

One of the reasons that McVeigh stated for the bombing was the fact that the Clinton administration was responsible for the killing of seventy-six Branch Davidians in Waco, TX. That includes women and children.

"I've just one thing to say: Waco. Bill just might want to watch what he's saying ..."

Yes, it was on Bill Clinton's watch that the United States government murdered a bunch of peaceful people doing nothing but exercising their religious beliefs on a quiet farm in Waco, Texas ... an vicioius and uncalled for attack that led directly to Timothy McVeigh.

It was the deliberate and official murder of these religious folks by the United States government headed by Bill Clinton that convinced McVeigh that his government had lost all legitimacy.

Bill Clinton should shut his fucking pie hole before he kills more innocent people.

The Tea Party is accomplishing at least one thing in stunning efficiency: Encouraging people to define just exactly where they stand on the constitution and certain American principles despite anything they may have said previously. Stating what they value: Liberty or equality, personal responsibility or dependency.

Good point John and Allen. I distinctly remember Waco being McVeigh's causus belli.

If the left's efforts to criminalize the peaceful tea party demonstrations weren't so thorough and pervasive, they'd simply be laughable. The only "fever" I saw in Ann's photos was the apparent Fever for a Fish Fry.

Sorry Althouse but Clinton has not been "super-sharp" for quite a while.

He needs to go out to supermarkets and gas stations and malls and playgrounds and let the average American vent their spleen to him for a while. He'd be in for a damn rude awakening. He would not hear even one thing he wants to hear.

Critics of the Tea Partiers' anger speak as though what the Democrats and the government have done has nothing to do with creating the public's anger.

Obama, Pelosi, and Reid have made people angry because they have disenfranchised them and ignored their views, dismisssed them and derided them, and enacted by trickery legistlation that the maority of the public opposes.

And they are surprised we are angry?

This is to say nothing of the media, which--except for Fox and some in the blogosphere--have completely failed to artuclate any point of view oopposed to or even critical of what Obama and Pelosi are doing. The media have instead been cheerleaders, currying favor with the powerful.

The result is that politicians who are much more liberal than most of the country have been enacting policies that most of the country has opposed, while the media have cheered them on and derided as racists and worse those who are in opposition.

And they are surprised that a lot of people are very angry? Wait until November.

"Good point John and Allen. I distinctly remember Waco being McVeigh's causus belli."

It was not just Waco ... it was also the FBI seige at Ruby Ridge where FBI sniper Lon Horiuchi, acting illegally and under military rules of engagement issued by the his Commander in Chief, the President of the United States, BIll Clinton, did murder a man and an unarmed woman carrying a defenseless 10-month-old child.

The murderer sniper was indicted for involuntary manslaughter, but the case was removed to a fixed Federal Court and the charge was dropped.

That out-of-control decision to drop the charges by an obviously compromised federal judicial system was eventually reversed en banc by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

That put the case back into the hands of the District Court ... and lo and behold they decided to drop all charges.

Horiuchi got away with murder and remains a free murderer to this day.

Pretty infuriating. It was this other event that also animated Tim McVeigh to conclude that his government was illegally murdering its citizenry and using its military forces to do it.

The reactions of the democrats individually and as an administration to the Tea Party Movement reminds me of the reactions to the Anti-War Movement in its early days, before it won the hearts and minds of CBS. FBI, fear, dismissal, denigration.

Clinton is correct to recognize the anger behind the rise of the Tea party, and it's no mark of political genius to wonder if anger can become violence.

His error is in suggesting that "justifyi[ng] every dollar of taxes we raise and every dollar of money we've spent," is all that need be done to assuage the anger.

It's much more than that. It's about the basic American principle of liberty. Only one manifestation of the loss of liberty is excessive taxation and spending; the healthcare bill's takeover of 1/6th of the economy is more than just a money issue.

He should be asking why the administration is fomenting that anger, and is expanding the list of grievances every single day.

Clinton was right about one thing he was roundly criticized for saying in the past however. In a few years, this Obama guy just might be getting him coffee after all.

"Obama, Pelosi, and Reid have made people angry because they have disenfranchised them and ignored their views, dismisssed them and derided them, and enacted by trickery legistlation that the maority of the public opposes."

They have also committed felony crimes in order to secure that legislation - including the bribery of one Senator and the extortion of a sitting US Representative.

It's not just that they passed this legislation ... it's that they did so illegally by bribery and deceit and extortion.

Our government is being run by fucking criminals and they are able to get away with it only because they cannot be forced before the Congress and put under fucking oath.

That shit is going to change on November 4. And then we'll get to the bottom of these crimes that have been committed in order to secure this illegitimate legislation.

And then we're going to fucking repeal it and put some motherfuckers in jail.

All of this is straight out of the demonize, marginalize, humiliate, playbook.

Truly, it's a vast left wing conspiracy. It's like they all get an EMail first thing every morning from Rambo and the Big Zero.

The Tea Party rallies and Town Hall meetings were - and this was always obvious - made up of mainly middle class Americans concerned about the direction the gov't was taking them. Polls clearly indicated that a majority opposed the alledge HCR.

The leftist response: straight out of Alinski. Demonize. Marginalize. Personalize and attack. Humiliate. Every time Jeremy comes here to talk about testicles this is what he's doing (why is Jeremy always thinking about putting testicles in his mouth? just sayin).

Clinton - 100% calculated as part of a national effort.

Meanwhile, the President - Mr. Zero himself - is making fun of, and taunting, millions of Americans. I can't remember. Did Bush or Reagan ever taunt Americans like that. I don't even think Clinton, big pantload that he is, did that.

I figure the Tea Partiers have a lot more respect around the country than any of the slimeballs trying to tear them down. Gotta love what kind of human beings pass as "elder statesmen" and national figures in the Democrat Party. An impeached and disbarred Southern-fried fraud, a Klansmen, a guy who lived in an illegal gay brothel while serving in Congress, and on and on and on...

Keep it up, Billy-boy. Everybody already knows you as an inveterate liar. With you as an enemy, who needs friends?

Clinton would have a point if he limited his concerns to the outliers of this still inchoate movement. The fringes of this movement are indeed pretty ugly.

Fringes. Fringes. Fringes.

But I don't think the fringes of this group listens to the mainstream of the movement anymore than the Weathermen or other violent anti-Vietnam war groups listened to mainstream war protesters like Clinton.

No one seriously believes that the sometimes harsh rhetoric of the larger anti-Vietnam War movement caused the radicals to explode. The radicals were driven by their own views and interests and not influenced by others in the effort.

"Did Bush or Reagan ever taunt Americans like that. I don't even think Clinton, big pantload that he is, did that."

Yes, Clinton did taunt the American people.

He stuck a cigar up the pussy of a 22-year-old intern inside the White House Oval office and then held a press conference where he taunted the American people by lying to us directly to our faces:

Bill Clinton:"I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky. I never told anybody to lie, not a single time; never. These allegations are false. And I need to go back to work for the American people."

He also lied about this under oath and was found guilty of perjury and stripped of his license to practice law.

He was also impeached by the United States House of Representatives for committing obstruction of justice and perjury.

Although the Democrat-controlled Senate refused to find him guilty, Clinton's reputation lay in tatters.

It still does.

Bill Clinton is a fucking criminal. And he should shut his fucking pie hole as regards my willingness to dissent against his socialist friend in the White House illegally bribing Senators and extorting US Representatives to give his union pals a raise.

Clinton said people have the right "to advocate whatever the livin' Sam Hill they want to advocate" but they must observe "the basic line dividing criticism from violence or its advocacy."Gee, where was Clinton demanding calm when lefty protesters were calling for the murder of Bush? I don't remember hearing it from him then.

In 2003, Hillary Clinton screeched "I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and you disagree with this administration somehow you're not patriotic. We should stand up and say we are Americans and we have a right to debate and disagree with any administration."

Because to the Clintons of the world, it is all about gaining and keeping polictal power. If, in doing so,some American issue or problem gets fixed, well that is just an accidental by-product for which Clinton will take 100% of the credit.

Once again Democrats misread Tea Partiers. This is no different than how Republican misread those opposed to the war in Iraq around 2004-5 or how Democrats and Republicans misread anti-war sentiment in the late 60's.

I know Bill wants to be an elder statesman but statements like these detract from the resume.

I used to have a lot of respect for Billy Boy. Didn't agree with a lot of his politics, but at least the guy was a professional politician (not that that's a compliment, but it's better than what we have now) and had some real brainpower.

When he veered left and the electorate gave pushback, he had the good sense to head back toward the center.

Since he doesn't have to worry about his political image anymore, this just goes to show me that he's either a) a radical at heart, b) off his fucking rocker, or c) both.

Anyone who wants to go to biggovernment.com and look it up, can find how the whole 'teabagger' campaign has been orchestrated by Willie and his pal, the Ragin' Cajun, but what the Hell else did anybody expect? He is every bit the far Left radical as his wife-in-name-only and The Zero.

More to the point, what's the difference with him and his "Little McVeighs" and Ward Churchill and his "Little Eichmanns"? Hopefully, the former Serial-Rapist-In-Chief has finally worn out his welcome.

Ann Althouse said...

Maybe we should be tolerant of the old man's maunderings. But I think that Clinton is super-sharp, that he knows he can connect with the American psyche — not all the time, but some of the time, and that he's deliberately applying his skills for specific, political effect:

I don't think Willie's 'skills' are all that formidable. He ran for President virtually unopposed twice and, in both cases, almost lost - he couldn't even get 50% of the vote either time. I think a lot of people have always seen him for what he was and this may be the final nail in his coffin.

I've always thought the pollsters high-balled Willie and, mirabile dictu, earlier this year, we find out that The Zero's high poll ratings came from a larger-than-justifiable number of Demos in the sample. Wonder how long that's been going on?

Although Ann calls him an 'old man', he's a year or so older than me and about 5 years older than her. He looks that bad because his sins are catching up with him.

Either that, or the color he's bleaching his hair is Dorian Gray.

AJ Lynch said...

The last time Cinton was right about something?

Was it when he warned us that the banking system would collapse due to Rep & Dem errors in giving everyone a govt-backed mortgage or was it when he warned us many, many times about the threat of Bin Laden and AlQuaeda or was it when he said global warming was overblown or was it when he said Saddam had WMD or was it when he told us we had to privatize Social Security or it would go broke?

Willie gave us the subprime mess when he expanded the CRA in the 90s. He had a chance to get Bin Laden on a silver plate and refused it. And let's definitely not forget all those WMDs he said Saddam had when he was bomobing Iraq so we'd forget about Monica. He knew about Enron and swept it under the rug for his successor.

Does it seem like most of the problems we have today started with him?

Damn straight!

rdkraus said...

Alinsky.

All of this is straight out of the demonize, marginalize, humiliate, playbook.

Except in the 90s, it was known as the Politics of Personal Destruction, but you're right, it was the same thing.

I used to have a lot of respect for Billy Boy. Didn't agree with a lot of his politics, but at least the guy was a professional politician (not that that's a compliment, but it's better than what we have now) and had some real brainpower.

When he veered left and the electorate gave pushback, he had the good sense to head back toward the center.

He didn't 'veer left', that's where he always was. Look at the first two and last two years of his administration. The only reason he looked like a centrist in the middle four years is because Dick Morris told him what to do if he wanted to be re-elected and stay out of jail. The "New Democrat" thing was as phony as The Zero's supposed moderation.

The fact that this sack of slime can still snow some people never fails to amaze me.

"... at least 44% of the electorate thinks the tp-ers are fringe- but not in a dangerous way."

That means 56% of people don't see them as fringe at all, and the last time I checked, 56% of the people agreeing that the Tea Party has it right is going to mean a huge landslide of fired Democrats come November 3.

"The fact that this sack of slime can still snow some people never fails to amaze me."

Ok, point taken. I phrased mine poorly. You'll get no argument from me about his sliminess. My point was that the guy knew what he was doing when it came to playing politics. He's a weasel, but a smart one.

"The structure of the Cold War -- the clear bipolar world -- was coming to an end," Clinton said. "There were more and more people having trouble figuring out where they fit in. It is true that we see some of that today."

He. has. GOT. to be. kidding?

Was he always this-out of touch?

Ya ghee-almost every person I talk to-on the plane, in the coffee shops, at the DMV-is worried about where they fit in the less "bipolar world"?

What the hell did he smoke at Yale or Harvard-ivy that has a half life of forty years and then retrogrades your brain?

Catch a clue Clinton-most people I know are worried about their house value, making the mortgage payment and paying or saving for their children's tuition.

What kind of evil is Bill up to?

Really unpresidential what he is doing here-sliming one rather good slice of the American electorate with some loose free association he is doing inside his brain-wait -outloud and in front of a TV camera-associating all of them with a mass murderer of children no less.

Well -it's about time they let slip what they really think of the electorate that votes for the other guy.

And, I really bet-he is thinking of the US military and Vets here when he is talking about those that are supposedly worried where they fit in the Post- Cold War...

So Clinton hates Americans that can think and speak out against his Party's calculated robbery of every thing they ever had or hoped to have? What's new? The Clinton Crime Team taught the new guys how to get away with it.

Ya ghee-almost every person I talk to-on the plane, in the coffee shops, at the DMV-is worried about where they fit in the less "bipolar world"?

What the hell did he smoke at Yale or Harvard-ivy that has a half life of forty years and then retrogrades your brain?

Just because these wouldn't have been intellectual conversations (as every post that elicits comment here under "foreign affairs" attests) doesn't mean that these ideas don't float around in the average right-wing and left-wing psyche.

The quote that they use in the New York Daily-(or whatever )is somewhat taken out of context-but they migt have done Bill a favor in other respects.

Bill goes on and on and I just skimmed it-but-he mentions the end of the Cold War-and the "new" upheavals and he mentions everything from Waco, Ruby Ridge, some Arkansas police murders by right wingers-, the first World Trade Center bombing and 9/11.

Go read the transcript. He is taken out of context but I think he isn't worried about-"average right-wing and left-wing psyche."

Somehow he is trying to make the political language of the day "responsible" for one lone nutter "Timothy McVeigh".

I get that Liberals think that they can control the environment, and therefore control everyone-but sorry the world cannot "control crazy".

Timothy McVeigh-was a nut-and could have potentially heard his damn dog telling him to bomb the Federal building-to smear everyone who is not pleased with Democrats who have every representative arm of the government with the responsibility of their language influencing-some future action akin to that-while at the same time Clinton refuses to accept responsibility -in fact refuses to even acknowledge the USS Cole etc-to what he does list is some sort of exercise in unreality.

Or Bill Clinton's reality-obviously his "memory" of important events leading up to 9/11 has some huge gaps.

Yep, and the guy that was so terrified of "words have meaning" that he refused to allow the US and by extension the UN to use the word-"genocide" with all the accompanying paralysis that went with that "nonaction".

I just love it when someone tosses a rock into this cave full of rattlesnakes.

I was half expecting someone to post the McVeigh was justified and this was all Clinton's fault. Then of course, the clarion cry from the uberright on this board would be Bin Ladin was right and Clinton's actions justified it..then we would hear there was an earthquake in Haiti and it was all Clinton's fault... etc.

Careful fellas. Don't let the ground shift under your feet too much.

Frankly I think Clinton got it about right and the morons on here are just from another planet.

What Bill Clinton knows is that no one can control crazy-there is no way that Republicans can protect against a lone wolf looking like they are taking up the cause and acting violently.

In fact Bill Clinton might be banking on that.

And, more importantly he is setting up the prism or forced perspective that any future act of violence will be judged by-lining it up side by side in the memory of Americans with the Oklahoma City Bombing-he is drawing the parallels for everyone in America in advance.

God, I hate writing this, but Bill Clinton is to the right of Obama. Bill actually did help dismantle a chunk of welfare and signed free trade agreements (heck, Clinton was more of a free trader than Bush.)

So, how does Herr Clinton view Ruby Ridge? Does Clinton feel that federal agents need to be reined in so that more innocent bystanders aren't shot? That could be one interpretation of Ruby Ridge.

OTOH, there's always Frau Clinton's remarks from not too many years ago about dissent being a form of patriotism. Maybe, now however, her remarks have expired and are no longer operative? Pity!

But, somewhere, somehow, there's potentially a TEA Partier scheming to do something that might just possibly be considered terrible or otherwise unacceptable, perhaps. Then Herr Clinton could say: "Told you so!" Now that was easy, wasn't it?

Bill looks like he's lost a step or two. I guess those triple bypasses do take their toll. I think the democrats might want to rethink their strategy of using Clinton in their Varsity string when launching liberal talking points about those dangerous tea party types. You'll have to do much, much better than this.

Libtard: I was half expecting someone to post the McVeigh was justified and this was all Clinton's fault.

Of course not, but McVeigh did seek vengence for Waco. Its one of the reasons he specifically chose a target with daycare of Federals kids onsite.

Clinton [through Reno] was advised by Army NBC specialists that a CS attack would likely suffocate children in the compound, as their lungs are too small to handle what would be a non-lethal dose for an adult. But Clinton gave the order anyway. And the children choked to death.

Clinton created McVeigh. He's got alot of gall turning this into a warning against "angry" protestors.

"(T)his statement serves as a useful reminder to those who have come to think of Clinton as some sort of cuddly, not-so-bad figure. He was a demagogue who would say whatever he thought might work when he was President, and he still is."

Quite so (emphasis mine).

Anybody else concerned that the last two Democrat Presidents were Alinsky-driven sociopaths?

Madawaskan: [Clinton] is setting up the prism or forced perspective that any future act of violence will be judged by-lining it up side by side in the memory of Americans with the Oklahoma City Bombing-he is drawing the parallels for everyone in America in advance.

"The same weirdos come out of the woodwork whenever Democratic president gets elected. We can see them, and talk to them. It's hardly a secret."

I agree with garage, actually, except for the adjectives.

The issue is probably just a matter of who is the incumbent at the moment. Bill Clinton noticed the hostility because he was on the receiving end of it. Now Obama and the Democrats are on the receiving end of it again.

But since the level of hostile rhetoric during Republican administrations is every bit as harsh if not more so, frankly, it can only be a matter of perception. The identity of the "weirdos" coming out of the woodwork has changed and now, all of a sudden, the exact same people who were saying the most outrageous, hostile and violent things are suffering some sort of amnesia.

It's totally subjective.

But yeah... when a Democrat gets elected the same weirdos come out of the woodwork, and when a Republican gets elected a different set of weirdos come out of the woodwork and (in Bush's case) start calling for assassinations, telling the world that there will be civil war and theocracy, and promising Bin Laden that (and this was absolutely part of the election time rhetoric of 2000) that Bush was an unstable warmonger who was on the crazy edge of global war.... which is exactly what Bin Laden wanted to provoke in order to get complacent Moslems to rise up to their destiny. Not that any of the oh so reasonable sophisticates who were saying those things ever took credit for the results of their slanders or gave Bush credit for making sure that the war never ever became a war against Islam... but there you go.

The hateful rhetoric against Sarah Palin hasn't eased up even without her election so I can just imagine what it would be like if she had been or if she is in the future. The same set of apoplectic "weirdos" won't even have to come out of the woodwork they never retreated to.

Yes, Ruby Ridge was under Bush (41), and not Clinton (42). I, along with I think many others, seemed to think that it was a Clinton era abuse, but it wasn't. I think that the reason that so many of us do is that it happened during Clinton electioneering in 1992, and then got tied to Waco.

I really don't know how much actual involvement Bill Clinton had with Waco. I have always seen the fiery ending as AG Reno getting rolled by the FBI. Yes, she gave the go-ahead, killing all those innocent children (and adults), based on mis-information from her subordinates concerning the welfare of those same kids playing on the emotions of a woman who had made her career (supposedly) defending kids.

Regardless of her motives, Reno had their blood on her hands. The question though is how much of that blood was on the man who appointed her to office. And, ditto for Bush (41) for Ruby Ridge.

As a note, I have been spending a bit of time in past years in NW Montana close to the Idaho border. We quickly discovered where Hayden Lake was (just north of Coeur d'Alene - note my last name), but recently, wondered about Ruby Ridge. It turns out to be less than 20 miles north of Sandpoint, where I spent my birthday this fall. All right along U.S. 95 fairly close together. And, BTW, for all your conspiracy theorists where is Sarah Palin from?

Let me note that Sarah Palin (was) moved from Sandpoint, Idaho, more than 25 years before the Ruby Ridge standoff, etc., and Randy Weaver didn't move there until at least 15 years after she and her parents had moved to Alaska. So, no, I don't think that there is a connection there.

Have two words for those that seem to think Bill Clinton is out of line: Hutaree Milita.

Don't you people follow or read the news? Or is it that you can't seem to look at anyone without letting your ideology influence your objectivity?

We have seen a 244 percent increase in the number of militias and other so-called anti-government patriot groups. That's 363 new groups that appeared in a single year!

President Barack Obama is the target of more than 30 potential death threats a day!

What parts of Clinton's speech to find objectionable? The part that it could be true or that it was spoken by what you consider your "arch enemy," yes, God forbid a Democrat or a Liberal?

For ONCE take off the Republican/Tea Party glasses and READ some of the points that he said. If it helps, try to imagine Ronald Reagan saying it instead!

“We shouldn’t demonize the government or its public employees or its elected officials,” Clinton says. ”We can disagree with them. We can harshly criticize them. But when we turn them into an object of demonization, you know, you — you increase the number of threats.”

Or

"I’m not defending the specifics of any of these; I’m just telling you that’s what’s going on. There is an enormous psychological disorientation today. And that is also the way it was in the early ’90s. And we must not forget that when that happens, we have to pay special care both to have a raging debate, because we need to figure out what to do about this, and to do it in a way that nurtures the best in us, not the worst.

The second lesson we have to learn is that we can’t let the debate veer so far into hatred that we lose focus of our common humanity. It’s really important. We can’t ever fudge the fact that there is a basic line dividing criticism from violence or its advocacy. And the closer you get to the line, and the more responsibility you have, the more you have to think about the echo chamber in which your words resonate.

Look, criticism is part of the lifeblood of democracy. Nobody’s right all the time. But Oklahoma City proved once again that, beyond the law, there is no freedom. And there is a difference between criticizing a policy or a politician and demonizing the government thatguarantees our freedom and the public servants who implement them.

And the more prominence you have in politics or media or some other pillar of life, the more you have to keep that in mind."

If you got those numbers from the SPLC, I seriously doubt their validity.

That so-called "non-profit" group has about $200 Million in th bank and can not continue to get big donations unless unless it contantly cries that the sky is falling and America is full of racists/ anarchists.

The SPLC has carved out a very lucrative niche in the race hustling / poverty pimp industry.

Crystal, we actually GO to the Tea Parties. We know Clinton is lying. For crying out loud, he's one of the most notorious liars on the planet, and you're gonna get all sputtery and weepy because he claims his political opponents are dangerous? You know what's really dangerous about the Tea Partiers? They don't buy the bullshit anymore. And that terrifies the Clintons of the world.

Crystal: Yeah, how about all those movies and plays about the assassination of President ... Or those novels and other stories about the assassination of President ... Oh shucks those were about doing in President Bush weren't they, which makes them all OK in the "mind" of you"Progressives," eh!

You and your kind are truly sick. You make the most dispicable statements about Bush but cannot abide even mild dissent against President Obama's twisted agenda. Why don't you go share a cigar with Billy's latest bimbo and Obama's girls.

It's not disagreement, exactly. Because certainly unstable people can be encouraged by violent rhetoric. What it is is not actually having selective political amnesia.

I mean... Oh My God... were you alive from 2000 to 2008?

And if you do have selective amnesia and don't actually have any memories of 2000-2008... why don't we just go with more recent and relevant examples and "get in their faces" and "punch back twice as hard."

Crystal quoting WJC: There is an enormous psychological disorientation today.

Oh cry me a river.

A certifiable DSM-IV personality disordered guy is talking about the Tea Partiers being a result of enormous psychological disorientation which originated how and where?

The enormous psychological disorientation occurred as we watched the president and congress deep six our economy, and indenture us, our children, our grandchildren and probably further ahead with an absolutely incomprehensible debt burden ... and the intention is to develop more government programs and tax payer funded, non wealth generating federal jobs to increase it all the more.

That they can do this and lie through their teeth and MAKE JOKES about our legitimate, responsible, thoughtful concerns ...

The demonstrations are not asking for anything but responsible behavior, upholding the Constitution, and getting the federal government reduced in size and intrusiveness as we enjoy the fruit of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

We can do that just fine even if we don't do it "equally."

The framers are gagging on vomit when they see what the commerce clause has produced.

The disputes are only going to get more bitter. The left knows only force as a way of getting anything done. Eventually people will get tired of it. Most Americans know what is going on now. They are just waiting for the slow learners in the media and academia to catch up.

In socialist countries politics is a bloodsport because it is the easiest way to get ahead. It is much harder to work for a living or to do something productive. And it is just stupid to even pursue that path when the government can, and will, take it all away from you or step in and bail out your competitor. Better to be a part of the machine as the country winds down... as it will once your productive class gives up.

When there is only a single lever of power everyone is going to fight over it. This strife and division will be Obama's only lasting legacy. Well, that and a high structural unemployment rate just like the Europeans have if he gets more of his ridiculous BS passed by Congress.

But the Dems are playing a very dangerous game. If they call people who believe in the foundational principles of the country terrorists or extremists then what most people will hear them saying is that they themselves are traitors and are up to no good. They are doing everything in their power to provoke a violent response. The more they rail against the average citizen the more apparent it becomes as to the game they are playing.

It is a bit dissonant for many of us to review the {--silence of the lefties--} when Bush was being violently verbally attacked on a regular basis (not to mention in films, posters and the rest), horror stories were being circulated about John Ashcroft and the like, and compare that to the response to peaceful -- while energetic -- gatherings for change (No tear gas! No dogs! No arrests!) ---

It can be initially enormously disorienting.

So although I realize the anniversary of the Oklahoma City Bombing is coming up, and Clinton is trying to be relevant, when the AP has Clinton alluding to the "anti-government tea party movement" it makes me crazy. No -- it makes me angry.

The tea party is not ANTI-government. It is about small government and adherance to the US Constitution.

And after Clinton rambles here and there trying to tie all these things together he ends with "But remember, words have consequences as much as actions do, and what we advocate, commensurate with our position and responsibility, we have to take responsibility for. We owe that to Oklahoma City."

That first sentence is just ludicrous considering what he did while president.

After reading the response to what I posted. I can see why there is absolutely no reason to even try to communicate with the "righties." And you people keep saying "forget about Bush," or "you can't keep blaming Bush." Yet, every single one of you ironically has the memory of an elephant and evoke every nasty, vile thing you can think of during the Bush and Clinton administration! Hypocrisy much?So what about the 2nd Amendment Marches that are scheduled today. One in Washington DC (unarmed) the other in Virgina (armed). Nothing to do with the Tea Party? Coincidence? Do you think they'll be sporting the infamous bright yellow Gadsden flag? You might want to get on them, because we wouldn't want anyone to confuse one wing nut for another. You do realize the Gadsden flag symbolizes “unity” not independence, right?So since you people are such great defenders of George W Bush--where was your OUTRAGE over his LEGITIMATE violation of the Constitution when he was in office? You know that little thing called the Patriot Act? Or No Child Left Behind teaching mandate? And how exactly do you feel about "W" now that we KNOW that we went to Iraq under false pretenses. Guess those Dems nastily protesting the war where over 4,000 of our soldiers died for what exactly?Granted I can understand the generalization torking you off--I don't think "all" Tea Party members are capable of violence. Quite frankly, I don't they're smart enough to overthrow the government. After all, we've all seen their spelling. Although, I don’t really think militia men/women were responsible for the numerous death threats and vandalism that occurred after Health Care passed either.However, how do you explain the Hutaree Militia? Where did they get they're information from? What government representative’s hyperbolic rhetoric do you think they listen to? For instance, who compared the Health Care Bill to “Armageddon?” Considering that they are called “Right Winged Extremist,” probably the same media and government officials that the Tea Party and you do. Do you people even realize that Timothy McVeigh hung around with the Michigan Militia group prior to Oklahoma bombing? So tell me, what part of the Constitution has been violated by President Obama? What earth-shattering event, similar to Waco or Ruby Ridge that has happened during Obama’s presidency that warrants a group like the Hutaree to contemplate killing a police officer and then planting bombs to go off during his or her funeral procession with the goal of starting a war with the Federal Government? In conclusion, if you feel that absolutely NOTHING has been said that could prompt some right-winged nutcase to do something as vile as what Timothy McVeigh did—then I guess you have nothing to worry about, do you? None of you obviously have any respect for former President Clinton—so why do you care? I just wonder , how any of you can be that confident after what happened on April 19, 1995 in Oklahoma City? Ultimately, I believe that we need to learn from our history—both good and bad. And whether you like or hate President Clinton—that was the message he was trying to get acrossed!

But you did raise an interesting point about the Patriot Act. Many conservatives DID loathe the Patriot Act and spoke out against it. But all of the faux moralists like yourself who pretended to be outraged at Bush for implementing it neglect to mention that it had built-in checks and expiration dates. Obama has now expanded the scope of the Act while working to make it permanent. Where's your outrage? Where's your outrage now that Obama is slaughtering Muslim civilians with drone strikes? Where's your outrage now that Obama's the one holding terror suspects without trial? Where's your outrage now that Obama is ordering rendition?Face it, the spasm of hatred for the United States, the President, and even Western Civilization that masqueraded as an "anti-war" movement was a phony as Obama's "deficit reduction". But since Obama has stayed the course, it begs the question: Was President Bush right all along, or is Obama a war criminal? it's got to be one or the other.

Crystal, at the risk of raising your comments to the level of an argument, a rebuttal is being done here.

Can you explain what the problem with a rally in support of a Constitutional Amendment is? What Amendment is not allowed to be defended? Would a pro-1st Amendment freak you out? Why are some Amendments more equal than others?

As for the PATRIOT Act, Obama had it renewed and is trying to expand it. Why is that OK? Bush can at least claim he didn't appreciate the excesses in it. What is Obama's excuse? He griped about the bill incessantly...then decided it was good for him to use.

Iraq was a mistake, no doubt. Of course, expecting somebody to know that Saddam was bluffing when his own generals thought he wasn't is silly.

With the typos rampant in your diatribe, critiquing others intellects seems like an exceedingly poor strategy. And nothing quiets a protest like referring to them as idiots and traitors. Really.

In the end, you are worrying about a group that had wanted to kill govt officials in 2008. So, its not like Obama spawned this.

Expanding your knowledge by watching more than one media outlet is a very enlightening thing. You guys should try it sometime!Just got done watching Face the Nation where this Conservative columnist,fresh off her Pulitzer Prize win, Kathleen Parker spoke with Bob Schieffer about this VERY subject!Why don't you guys check out her column at http://www.arcamax.com/kathleenparkerPerhaps hearing from "one of your own" will give you a grasp of reality! But something tells me you won't take too kindly to her perspective--it's obvious you don't want to listen to anyone's but your OWN!